Atheist expects Boy Scouts to change, but not soon

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | 12/30/02 | JOHN IWASAKI

[RonF]

Darrell Lambert is prepared for a long struggle with the Boy Scouts of America, one decided by public opinion and not by lawsuits.

The 19-year-old Eagle Scout, the subject of national attention after being booted out of the organization last month for being an atheist, doesn't think his recent appeal will reverse his situation. Not soon, anyway.

Darrell Lambert of Olalla, who was kicked out of the Boy Scouts for being an atheist, has appealed the decision. But he says he won't go to court. "I'd like them to realize it is the moral thing to do."

"I think eventually the Boy Scouts will change," the Olalla teen said yesterday. "It'll just take longer than I like."

Lambert, who earned 37 merit badges in 10 years and assisted in leading a Port Orchard troop, sent his appeal last week to the Scouts' Western Region office in Tempe, Ariz. His letter started a process that likely could take months to resolve.

...

"Legally, (the Scouts) have a right to discriminate," Lambert said at a presentation on the issue yesterday. "Morally, they don't. That's what I'm fighting. They can't teach good citizenship and practice bad citizenship."

[Dimensio]

Christians are taught to love everyone, including their enemies (and including atheists).

I'm not denying the theory. I'm pointing out the practice.

But you can love someone and disagree vehemently with him at the same time, yes?

Yes, but I consider open discrimination justified as 'God-ordered' to be a little more than 'disagreeing while loving'.

[Dimensio]

A=without
Theism=belief in a god or gods
Atheism=without belief in a god or gods.

[Dimensio]

An atheist finds a $20 bill on the empty road and pockets it, because his personal morality happens to tell him that such is OK (some idiot lost their money and it's their own fault and I have no obligation to relieve him of his own stupidity). A Christian finds the $20 and is tempted to keep it, but finds (at his time and expense) a way to return it because he believes that God does not want him to steal. In this example (and a thousand others), the intercession of others is completely absent.

If your example weren't purely hypothetical, you might have a point, but given that I, an atheist, have turned in lost money before (and I have heard of others doing the same), your hypothetical little morality play doesn't pan out in reality.

A Christian just has one additional possible reason not to pocket the money, but that doesn't mean that he or she might not rationalize the act anyway.

[Dimensio]

Then, by necessity, moral's are relative. You like vanilla, I like chocolate.

Are you suggesting that flavour preferences are moral absolutetes, or are you presenting some kind of analogy that is too far removed from reality for me to understand?

Both Jesus of Nazareth and Pol Pot were right, relaitively speaking.

Right in what way?

[yendu bwam]

You are under the mistaken belief that getting caught is the only consequence. Living with the FEAR of getting caught is a consequence. The lost time, the "living a lie" and self-loathing are all consequences.

I've known several guys in my life (atheists all) who are adulterers and make sure that they won't get caught, enjoy using their time that way, and have no self-loathing about what they're doing (because they don't consider it wrong to begin with). (You know, I wouldn't want to hurt my wife, so as long as I'm sure she never finds out, we're all square...)

[Dimensio]

An "agnostic" simply believes "I don't know if there is a God or not". An atheist believes there is no God.

This is the definition from the perspective of someone who is neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You use the word 'God' in your definition as though it were an already defined and accepted construct, but to an atheist your 'God' is no more real than Krsna, Zeus or Baal.

Yet, you do such a despicable thing as put our Heavenly Father on the same level as the damned tooth fairy.......and on a public, conservative forum. You can't possibly believe there is an omnipotent God if you say such a thing

Because as we all know, it is impossible to believe that the Democrats are proposing unsound economic philosophy, that personal responsibility is a better way to run things than a welfare state/nanny state and that the right to keep and bear arms is something too important to be allowed to be destroyed requires a belief in a very specific deity.

[yendu bwam]

An afterlife, should there be one, will take care of itself.

Well, Christians believe that an afterlife exists and that we need to take care now to make sure we have a chance at a good one. Must be nice (now) to not have that worry! But you could be surprised...

[yendu bwam]

Christians are taught to love everyone, including their enemies (and including atheists).

I'm not denying the theory. I'm pointing out the practice.

Well, that's precisely what Christianity is about - getting people more in synch with the theory (actually, Christ's teaching and example). Surely that's a good thing.

[jwalsh07]

Are you suggesting that flavour preferences are moral absolutetes, or are you presenting some kind of analogy that is too far removed from reality for me to understand?

I tried the analogy on my granddaughter who is almost 4. She understood it with a bit of prompting. You, I have no hope for but I'll try anyway.

In a world of moral relativism, you're flavor of morality may be different from the next guys, ie. Pol Pot and Jesus of Nazareth. That being the case there is no objective right or wrong, no moral absolutes, just moral relativism.

Is that too tough for you to handle? Should I simplify a bit more?

[yendu bwam]

Yes, but I consider open discrimination justified as 'God-ordered' to be a little more than 'disagreeing while loving'.

I don't know what kind of discrimination you're talking about - There's certainly nothing wrong with people choosing an organization for their sons that actively promotes a belief in God (since that's what they believe in). People send their kids to Sunday school. Should Sunday schools have to admit atheists? I have love for you Dimensio, as a fellow human being. I sure don't agree with everything you say - nor would want you to promote your beliefs to my children.

[Dimensio]

Of course, I screwed up the grammar in my last sentence. It should be more like:

" Because as we all know, belief that the Democrats are proposing unsound economic philosophy, that personal responsibility is a better way to run things than a welfare state/nanny state and that the right to keep and bear arms is something too important to be allowed to be destroyed requires a belief in a very specific deity."

[f.Christian]

An agnostic doesn't know---'care'...

an atheist is militant/disruptive about it!

Liars pick...change and posture(disquise) their own to suit themselves---fool others!

[BMCDA]

There's certainly nothing wrong with people choosing an organization for their sons that actively promotes a belief in God

Oh but which god? In my conversation with RonF I found out that it doesn't have to be the Christian god (it can be Mother Earth, some Pagan deity, the Deist god...)
And isn't allowing the belief in more gods akin to moral relativism? Or do all religions and beliefs promote exactly the same moral code?

[yendu bwam]

If your example weren't purely hypothetical, you might have a point, but given that I, an atheist, have turned in lost money before (and I have heard of others doing the same), your hypothetical little morality play doesn't pan out in reality.

And I have met many atheists who keep the money (and some Christians too). The point is, the Christian knows it's wrong, and that he will suffer consequences for not turning it in. The atheist may or may not believe it's wrong, and may or may not believe he will suffer consequences from not turning it in. There's a big difference there.

[Dimensio]

An atheist lacks belief in gods. An atheist might be militant about it, but being militant about it is not part of the definition of atheism. Repeating the falsehood that atheism implies a militant stance after being told that it is not true is called 'lying'.

An agnostic believes that it is impossible to know for certain whether or not a god or gods exist. An agnostic could claim to be 'sitting the fence', or an agnostic could simply lack belief in all gods for lack of any reason to believe or an agnostic could accept the existence of a god 'on faith' while admitting that true knowledge of that god's existence is impossible.

That you do not understand the definitions isn't my fault, though that you refuse to accept the definitions even when given to you is indicative of arrogance and dishonesty on your part.

[jwalsh07]

Oh but which god?

That's up to the private organization. It's called liberty.

[yendu bwam]

A Christian just has one additional possible reason not to pocket the money, but that doesn't mean that he or she might not rationalize the act anyway.

Well, the Christian has one huge additional reason to not pocket the money. If he succumbs to temptation and takes it, he cannot be forgiven without truly wanting to repent of that act and truly trying to be a better person (in terms of Christian morality) in the future. And he knows that if he doesn't repent, he will face really bad music. As such, I'd put my odds of getting my lost money back as much greater if a Christian found it, than if an atheist did so.

[Dimensio]

The point is, the Christian knows it's wrong, and that he will suffer consequences for not turning it in.

This will go into anecdotal evidence (which is at least a little more specific than what you've offered, though not much), but someone on the USENET newsgroup alt.atheism wrote of their car being stolen. It was recovered soon after and the woman who stole it arrested. She had left her audio cassettes in the car though: Christian Insipirational music.

I've heard in the past on Customers Suck that one of the more commonly stolen CD items from music stores is Christian music.

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by suggesting that Christians have a possible fear of punishment in 'the next life'. Does that make them morally superior to atheists, or does that make them more likely to be right about what they believe? I would think that it might be more commendable if someone was stayed from theft simply from their conscience rather than a fear of punishment in the afterlife.

[f.Christian]

Atheist don't have beliefs about God...that's an agnostic?

[BMCDA]

Liberty, eh? Sounds more like moral relativism to me.